The governor chose to chop down a program that helped create
economic success stories such as the revitalization of San Diego's
Gaslamp Quarter to pay for ongoing government programs like
welfare. However, the governor gave redevelopment agencies a deal
they could not refuse ---- they could stay alive if they gave 40
percent of this year's local property tax revenues to Sacramento
and 10 percent every year afterwards.

Because redevelopment agencies in the cities I represent have a
track record of success, I voted against the governor's
redevelopment plan. While some wanted to eliminate redevelopment
because a few agencies funded questionable projects, that does not
justify axing those who have been responsible with their tax
dollars. Redevelopment may need reform, but our actions should
target the abuses, not the whole program.

Not surprisingly, cities such as Escondido, Oceanside, Vista and
San Marcos have chosen to pay tribute to Sacramento rather than
lose an important tool to promote economic development. Escondido
has to pay $9.5 million this year and $2.2 million annually
thereafter while San Marcos estimates its payment this year to be
$15.9 million. These are dollars that would have stayed in their
city, used to keep business here and create jobs.

However, these cities are fighting back. The League of
California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association are
suing to block the governor's plan, and the state Supreme Court
temporarily blocked that plan from taking effect. The court will
decide by mid-January whether the plan is constitutional.

I believe the cities are right in this case and hope they
succeed in their court fight. In my view, the governor's plan
violates Proposition 22, which was passed by the voters last year.
This proposition prohibits the state from raiding local funds to
pay for Sacramento's overspending. If the court allows
redevelopment funds to be raided, then Prop. 22 may become
meaningless.

Most important, eliminating or reducing redevelopment will not
make much of a difference in our budget problems. While supporters
claimed we would save $1.7 billion if we cut redevelopment, it is
not a permanent budget cut because the money would be transferred
to cover other ongoing expenses. It would be penny-wise and
pound-foolish to downsize an engine of economic development to prop
up unsustainable government programs.

Make no mistake, the state needs to cut spending because it
continues to spend too much. But those cuts have to pass legal
muster and not jeopardize jobs. The governor's redevelopment plan
fails on both counts.